tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36405947.post2063680999430859469..comments2023-03-25T07:52:52.564-04:00Comments on Amanda's Blog: The right to bear armsAmandahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16219090094692861615noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36405947.post-56156924116078897442010-03-04T10:53:55.816-05:002010-03-04T10:53:55.816-05:00Sure, we all believe the world would be a better p...Sure, we all believe the world would be a better place without lethal weapons, but the fact is that this technology exists and will always be available underground, as Matt already said. Therefore, outlawing guns would only empower the outlaws. Hardly the intended effect. <br /><br />That said, however, I have no desire to purchase a gun. I have never lived in a high risk area or had a gun Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36405947.post-5588785593617430152010-02-11T18:06:11.246-05:002010-02-11T18:06:11.246-05:00looks like that site hasn't been updated in ab...looks like that site hasn't been updated in about 10yrs. beware of bad law. it also therefore can't have any studies about the effect of now expired federal "assault weapon" ban.<br /><br />nice shirt. scalia's plain meaning approach in heller should really have lead us there. shame.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00461814597326209812noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36405947.post-28401010865076173492010-02-11T11:40:26.245-05:002010-02-11T11:40:26.245-05:00For a bunch of legal cases, check out: http://jur...For a bunch of legal cases, check out: http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/gunlaw.htm#Stats<br /><br />and on a more humorous note: http://www.bustedtees.com/secondamendment#male?utm_medium=Affiliate&utm_source=PepperJam&source=pjn&subid=21181<br /><br />(links care of one of my labmates)Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10911301137553073266noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36405947.post-52507395529507427602010-02-10T13:33:50.033-05:002010-02-10T13:33:50.033-05:00yes, as a matter of law, it is an individual right...yes, as a matter of law, it is an individual right. at least as it pertains to the federal govt. there's a case pending right now as to whether it applies to the states too or if states can restrict you.<br />that's the textual analysis at least that prevailed in heller. the minority attempted to argue an alternative textual interpretation, which is nice because they usually go more Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00461814597326209812noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36405947.post-1559460712946185932010-02-08T13:40:55.213-05:002010-02-08T13:40:55.213-05:00And now, posting my opinions as a separate comment...And now, posting my opinions as a separate comment:<br /><br />I believe that the amendment, as all laws, should be interpreted according to the letter of the law. That need not correspond to the original meaning <i>per se</i>, but must correspond to the actual syntax and diction of the law on the books. Interpreting a law based on contemporary mores is, in my opinion, extremely dangerous, Benjamin Pollackhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12011941794053875465noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36405947.post-22241756287252477922010-02-08T13:31:24.086-05:002010-02-08T13:31:24.086-05:00One simple thing that makes parsing that sentence ...One simple thing that makes parsing that sentence moot is the fact that, both in 1792 when that statute was written and now, most adult Americans (back then, 18 to 45; today, 18 to 64) are part of the citizen's militia. The Supreme Court agreed in its 2008 decision U.S. District of Columbia v. Heller affirmed that this was the sense of militia intended when the amendment was written.<br /><Benjamin Pollackhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12011941794053875465noreply@blogger.com